There's personal freedoms

and there's personal freedoms apparently.
Compare:

"MCB Secretary-General Iqbal Sacranie said: "This is a very important ruling on the issue of personal freedoms"."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4310545.stm

with:

"One of the world's leading Islamic scholars has angered gay rights advocates in Asia and Europe after declaring that granting gay rights is a threat to society and should not be tolerated".

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/030105islam.htm


I'm sad, but not surprised, to see that Christian interpretation of personal freedom is held by another of the world's great faiths.

into their converting cultures.

more to the point, how does Anis Ahmad speak for the MCB? Is it cos they is both brown?

This is like saying that Jerry Falwell speaks for all Christians... its really not on.

that your question "is it cos they is both brown?" is meant to imply that I am a racist. I resent the implication most strongly. As to whether they are both brown, I have not the faintest idea since I have never seen a picture of Anis Ahmad.

the implication that the MCB are hypocrites when they fight government controls on what students can and cannot wear, just because some other Muslims somewhere else are bigots. It is outrageous.

As it happens, you can in fact attack the MCB for their opposition of Clause 28, or indeed its opposition to lowering the age of consent for gay sex. They are opposed to extending gay rights, and that does make them bigots. But to attack them for something that other groups elsewhere said is to assume collective responsibility of all Muslims for the actions of any one extremist - exactly the sort of thinking that has left us knee deep in blood over the last few years.

that is what Vlad is referring to. DUers like to pretend to be in favour of tolerance but there is more then enough religious bigotry on DU to show this is a lie.

so actually I'm not a racist, I'm a bigot. Before I fuck off, because that's what I'm going to do, rather than go crying to the monitors, I'll just say that I don't see what the difference is between highlighting conflicting statements by different parts of the Bush administration, or by New Labour, and posting conflicting statements made by different followers of the same faith. The first two, as far as I can see, are alright, but the third immediately attracts the most unpleasant form of personal abuse.

The judge stated that individuals had the right to manifest their religion. I assume this means that wiccans are now entitled to attend their schools and offices "sky clad" on their high holy days. Does this mean that 'dress down' Friday could soon be 'nude' Friday ?

a certain double standard applied to them... :P